Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	answer_n	argument_n	indirect_a	54	3	16.6815	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35038	Analepsis, or, Saint Peters bonds abide for rhetorick worketh no release, is evidenced in a serious and sober consideration of Dr. John Gauden's sense and solution of the Solemn League and Covenant : so far as it relates to the government of the church by episcopacy / by Zech. Crofton.	Crofton, Zachary, 1625 or 6-1672.	1660 (1660)	Wing C6984; ESTC R7749	30,761	39

propounded the answer had need be clear and arguments convincing that follow such provocations unto prejudice which would make a sober much more a scrupulous conscience turn aside and reade no further when conscience is so tender that reason is ready to pinch it into passion how little need is there to provoke it by Railings and reflexion of just miscarriages much less unjust calumnies Though Ironies and Satyrs may become Oratours in reproof they beseem not Casuists in the resolution of conscience-doubts But I proceed to consider his answer and Arguments The imbecillity of his answer and arguments the third Rock of conscience-resolution purposing by Gods grace to yield to the power of Reason that is in them though they come under so great disadvantages as have been noted His Answer is as himself suggesteth double indirect and direct His first Answer is indirect an oblique stroak at the whole body of the Covenant His indirect answer considered which work how prudently it is undertaken considering the universal obligation of the Covenant on all men f●om His Sacred Majesty to the meanest Subject let wise men judge and how proper to him who if my information faile not is himself engaged in it It is indeed a notable piece of policy under pretence of Reconciling the Covenant in one Article to Episcopacy to invalidate the whole and expose it to vulgar contempt but if it be sinful let it go His Rhetorick is Angelical but let us try the strength of his Reasons unto the loosing of St. Peters bonds The main strength of what he doth suggest against the Covenant The general scope of his arguments lieth in the miscarried Circumstances which do relate unto the imposing and taking of it viz. its defect in point if imposing power the terrour and tumults with which it was enforced the policy and humour from whence it did arise and the novel●y or unacquaintednesse of it as to our English Laws and Constitutions or the like Unto all which I shall only desire the Dr. on serious and second thoughts to give a candid clear rational and Scriptural resolve to this general case of conscience viz. if an Oath Vow or Covenant containing in it matter good and lawful though not necessary and positive duty be imposed by fraude as was that of the Gibeonites or force and factions Army and tumults as that of Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar without any formal authority other than a mans or peoples own voluntary Act and submission which is new unto and unacquainted with the Laws and Constitutions accustomed in the place and to the people be by reason of any or all these miscarried Circumstances void and null I am much mistaken if he cross not the common resolution of Divines and Casuists if he conclude the affirmative but let us consider his suggestions singly and so we shall best try their strength And his first on-set begins with an I might shrewdly batter the Covenant First argument the Covenants defectiveness as to authority page 6. and so he assaults it with that which I must consess is indeed a battering Ram and being admitted will endanger to beat down all that hath been done in this Kingdom since 1641. arraigning censuring and condemning all the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament in which I shall leave his prudence and discretion to be judged by such as are sensible how far His Majesties Honour the Kingdoms satisfaction and establishment in the desired peace is endangered by so much as a dispute thereof But the strength of it lieth in this the def●ctiveness of and so the invalidity of the Covenant as to any lawful constant or compleat authority capable to binde the Sub●ects and people of England in any Court of Con●cience or Judicature in which nothing can have any permanent bond or tie in Law except Gods Word as the vow of a servant son daughter or wife c. This I must confess is a fierce assault and specious argument yet methinks I finde a Covenanter fortified against its force by the Wool-sacks of these considerations First Answer to it The The two Houses of Parliament and those two had more than ordinary power are co-ordinate and sharers in the Legislation of England and so a constant lawful authority It is Sir worth you observation how warily in p. 18. your Casuist binds the King to protect and preserve his Episcopacy but barres His change of it without the counsel and desire of the two Houses whom he judgeth Propitious to it Secondly This Covenant was ordered by the Parliament during their Session And although I will not determine that an Order or Ordinance of one or both Houses can have the force and permanent tie of a law which yet among us will admit a dispute by the ablest Lawyers and many purchasers will plead for with vigour yet I think it will not be ordinarily denied that it may lay the Subjects under a permanent bond and I conceive these are terms very different that is a bond on Conscience which is not a Law and Tie in Judicature Orders of Parliament directing an Act presently to be executed will not I hope be denied obedience or the execution be voided by the after-dissolution of it especially where it is in its own nature permanent and abiding An Oath is in it self naturâ Rei a permanent bond once laid it ever binds a Parliament are a power sufficiently compleat to impose and enjoyn it if they see cause to bring a Colledge or Corporation under any special Oath by an Order during their Session I hope no Englishman will question their Authority nor Divine deny the Obligation of the Oath nor the one or other determine this tie to be discharged when the Parliament is dissolved Thirdly The supposed defect hath been since supplied and His Majesties consent or assent fully expressed by His swearing the same Solemn League and by Oath promising His Royal assent to all Acts and Ordinances enjoyning the same and by His Royal Declaration of the 16 th of August 1650. declaring His full perswasion of the justice and equity of every the Heads and Articles of the Solemn League and Covenant and so far justifying the taking of it by His Subjects that He graciously professeth to know no friends but the friends of the Covenant and no enemies but the enemies of the Covenant Hereby whatever defect was in the first imposing of it is fully made up to fasten it on the people now it is taken so that by reason of this subsequent Act I may say if by Moses he will be judged to Moses he shall go and admitting his parallel which some doubt will not in this case square if the Father Master Husband in the day that he heareth the vow of the Wife Child or Servant and hold his peace contradict it not much more if He justifie allow and commendit as His most Sacred Majesty hath done on most serious and deliberate though in a most publique

conscience made legible by the Lancashire and Cheshire plea for Non-subscribers and the testimonies of the Ministers in the several Counties of England published with their names subscribed and indeed Imprinted by the invasion and divastation of Scotland the Sequestrations and Sufferings even unto imprisonment and death of many in England pursuing His Majesties restitution on the account of the Covenant How can the Doctor confess Doubtlesse the sence of the Covenant hath lately quickned many mens consciences in their allegiance to the King so as to bring Him as David home with infinite joy and triumph page 25. and yet here complain that it was so easily vacated in point of its express Loyalty for the King's preservation If it were ever vacated when or how was it renewed and re-inforced If I may speak it without vanity had not the firm bond of the Covenant vigorously contended in the point of Loyalty against the violent powers which bare it down His late Majesties Martyrdom had not broken forth with such lustre not His now Majesty whom God long preserve been restored to that estate of Honour in which we now enjoy Him so that the Antecedent of this suggested Argument will be most positively denied But if we should admit it I cannot but wonder to hear a Divine say and inferre upon it If it were so easily vacated in point of Loyalty I do not see how it can be so binding against Episcopacy I think it to be no good Logick and worse Divinity from some mens evasion and violation to infer a vacation and non-obligation or from a vacation of it in one point to infer its non-obligation as to others sin indeed is apt but it must not be allowed to engender sin by Gods grace gradual violation shall not effect in me a total rejection of the Covenant His sixth suggestion seems indeed to be of more force than the former viz. 6th Suggestion in his indirect answer p. 8. The Covenant if so interpreted must needs grate sore upon and pierce to the quick those former lawful Oaths which had prepossessed the souls and consciences of most of us in England not only of Subjects as those of Allegiance and Supremacy besides that of Ministerial Canonical obedience to our lawful Superiours but even the conscience of the late King as bound by his Coronation-Oath c. From which Oaths as we know no absolution so neither can there be any superfetation of such a contradictory vow and Covenant without apparent perjury To all which I offer to consideration That the dissatisfaction of His late Majesty of Blessed Memory and in nothing more blessed than in the conscience He made of the Oath of God upon Him and the charge He hath left His now glorious Majesty That if God brought Him to His own Right on hard conditions He should be careful to performe what He should promise that is now beyond dispute and His Majesty that now is not only free from those Fetters which restrained His Royal Father but also is engaged in the same League and Covenant and this supposed contradiction cast out of doors and as to the contradiction of the Covenant to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy non constat it appeares not nor would it ever as it hath done have quickned the hearts of some to suffer for and to struggle under their Loyalty untill His Majesties Honourable Restitution if it were so repugnant to them Let its contradiction in this point be noted and we shall speak to it and as to that of Canonical obedience to our lawful Superiors its contradiction is suggested with an If it be so interpreted Let the interpretation be cleared before the contradiction be concluded and argued for if that Oath did bind an obedience to Bishops as invested with paternal authority and as a distinct and superior order of Ministry and it s unexplained etcaetera included more a grating upon and piercing to the quick this Oath was no other but duty and then the Argument is of no more force save to speak the fretting of their spirits who foolishly sware they know not what and now desire to maintain it more for fancy than conscience for it is not yet proved that such are lawful superiors in Church or State His seventh Answer or Argument is ab incommodo the inconvenience which must be very great and visible if it discharge an Oath And here he tells us It must needs run us upon a great Rock of not only Novelty but Schisme c. unto which I desire Sir you will please to observe 1. The loss we are at by the uncertainty of the object he urgeth this Argument with his universal discretive all Episcopal order and government We must Sir have a clear Notion of Episcopal Order and Government before we can with care shun the Schism nor is it explained to us by the general terms of Practice and Judgement of the Catholick Church in all ages and places till of later dayes for we know that superiority and paternal power over other Bishops and Ministers did too soon appear and too universally spread after the Apostles days unto the advancement of the man of sin though it prevailed not without great reluctancy and its removal hath been aimed at and endeavored by the Reformation Again must we take it for granted that conformity is essential to communion with the Church and agreement in discipline unavoidally necessary to union Certai●ly if so we must make the very form of Discipline an Article of our Creed And truly Sir the jus divinum or Apostolical institution of the form he seems to plead for lieth too much in the dark for such a conclusion and therefore the most himself tells us of it is That it looks like an immediate institution of Christ preceptive and explicite or tacite and exemplary pag. 13. but he knows not whether yet well knows simile non est idem and therefore he here calls it but an ancient tradition and universal observation and then the 34 th Article of the Church of England secureth us from this Rock of Schisme whilst it teacheth us 39 Articles of Religion in the Convocation held 1562. It is not necessary that traditions be in all places one and utterly alike c. In Politicks we well know different forms of Administration are consistent with union in the same Kingdome and Communion in the same Government It is no strange thing to see Corporations in England governed by their twelve Jurors without a Mayor and Court of Aldermen but it would be thought very strange from thence to charge them with sedition and it must be a jus divinum and immediate institution not Apostolical tradition or Universal observation must bar us from the priviledges any more than the dictated properties common to all policy Moreover Sir if this form of Discipline which he noteth some few Reformed Churches of later dayes want though they do not contemne but approve and venerate in others be so necessary a